Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VíaVienté (3rd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VíaVienté

VíaVienté (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article has been deleted twice before. It concerns a non-notable MLM, and is written by a user who persistently keeps reposting it. It now has more sources, but they're all garbage. For example, it cites to Time magazine—except Time never mentioned the product. It's cited because the company was allowed to buy reprints of the article as advertising. This article also cites the company itself and press releases which utterly fail to demonstrate notability. I've looked, and there's just nothing here. It fails WP:CORP. It's also pretty clear that this page exists to promote the product, so is also WP:SPAM. Cool Hand Luke 01:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete All that "Validation and Mention"? Paid for by VíaVienté. Agreed with the Time reprint per CH. The Terry Bradshaw segment is a paid program which airs in five minute commercial blocks and is not endorsed by the network it airs on (my bank was on the same "show" once), the KDAF (WB news segment) leads to a 404 and sounds like it was actually just an informercial for the product that aired on the station and not the newscast, and the Dallas Morning News was likely one of those full-page ads which most people ignore because it's clearly not editorial content (I can't find sources for the last two but I would surmise that's what they are). Buying space in something to say you're notable doesn't make you notable, and this sounds spammy. Nate · (chatter) 02:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Remove from mainspace: Delete or userfy; per the previous consensus. Not notable. - Rjd0060 02:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I hate adverts, but I can't delete because of this.--Brewcrewer 03:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If that Morning News article is real, then this article should be allowed, but rewritten so it would comply with WP:SPAM. Otherwise, I would say delete, for spam issues. -- azumanga 04:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Why would a single article that looks like an advertorial, hosted on the CEOs website, make this company notable? Cool Hand Luke 04:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Looks like the non-critical fluff pieces you see in every Sunday business section (on which day it did indeed appear). Nate · (chatter) 04:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and salt as frequently re-created spam (dubious "references" and all). /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 08:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.